Patna High Court
Mangani Lal Mandal vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 17 January, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2401 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2013 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani
======================================================
Mangani Lal Mandal S/o Late Jhoti Mandal resident of village - Gorgawan,
P.S. Phulparas, District - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Ashish Ranjan s/o Sri Mangani Lal Mandal R/o Vill - Gorgawan, P.S.
Phulparas, District - Madhubani.
3. Chouthia Devi, w/o Sri Mangani Lal Mandal, R/o Vill - Gorgawan, P.S.
Phulparas, District - Madhubani.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anurag Saurav, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhinav Alok, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar, APP
For the O.P.s : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-01-2025
The present petition, under Section 482 Cr.PC, has
been preferred against the impugned order dated
07.06.2015/08
.06.2015, passed by learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani, whereby learned
S.D.J.M. has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 337, 504, 506, 498A and 494 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against seven accused,
including the present petitioner.
2. The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR,
lodged by one Ashish Rajan, son of the accused-petitioner, is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2401 of 2016 dt.17-01-2025
2/6
that the father of the informant, who is the petitioner herein, is
keeping one Arti Devi as his wife. The said Arti Devi, is already
a married lady, having two children. On her instigation, the
petitioner-father has stopped maintaining the informant and his
mother and have been torturing them in various ways and even
transferring land in the name of the said Arti Devi. On protest
by the mother of the informant, she was assaulted on the order
of the petitioner herein by Arti Devi, Deepak Mandal, Ajit
Mandal, Harinarayan Yadav and Gulab Yadav. On hulla, when
the brother of the informant came to rescue them, he was also
assaulted by Anu Kumar.
3. After lodging of FIR, investigation was conducted
by the police and charge-sheet was submitted against all the FIR
named accused persons and after charge-sheet, Ld. S.D.J.M.
has passed the impugned order, whereby he has taken
cognizance against the accused persons including the petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.
4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State. However, nobody is present on behalf
of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, despite valid service of notice.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2401 of 2016 dt.17-01-2025
3/6
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated by the
informant-son with ulterior motive and mala fide. The
informant, in fact intends to harass his father and grab his
property. The case has been filed when the petitioner
transferred a property in the name of one Arti Devi. Moreover,
there is no allegation of demand of dowry or torturing therefore.
There is also no allegation that the petitioner has assaulted any
of the alleged victim. He also submits that the informant is a
major and he is not entitled to any maintenance from the
Petitioner/Father. Moreover, no maintenance case or criminal
case has been filed by the wife of the petitioner. As such, no
offence under Section 341, 323, 337, 504, 506 and 498A is
made out.
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
Petitioner that as per the allegation, even Section 494 of IPC,
which provides for punishment for bigamy, is not attracted. The
only allegation made by the informant/son in this regard is that
the petitioner/father has kept one Arti Devi as his wife. But there
is no allegation that he has solemnized his marriage with her.
7. As such, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and
it is liable to be quashed and set aside under Section 482 Cr.PC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2401 of 2016 dt.17-01-2025
4/6
to prevent the abuse of process of the Court and to meet the
ends of justice.
8. However, learned APP for the State defends the
impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity
in it and hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. I considered the submissions advanced by both the
parties and perused the relevant materials on record.
10. I find that the FIR has been lodged not by the wife
of the Petitioner but by his major son and this FIR has been
lodged when the petitioner transferred property in the name of
one Arti Devi. It also transpires from the allegation that the
informant/son as well as the wife of the petitioner are aggrieved
by the transfer of property by the petitioner in the name of Arti
Devi and on account of such grievance, the FIR has been lodged
making allegation of cruelty. Even as per the FIR, no assault has
been made by the petitioner against any alleged victim. The
petitioner has been implicated by the informant alleging the
petitioner as an order giver for assault. Such allegation appears
to be prompted by vengeance and mala fide on account of
transfer of property by the petitioner in the name of one Arti
Devi. As such, Section 323, 341, 337, 504, 506 are not attracted
in the alleged facts and circumstances of the case. There is no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2401 of 2016 dt.17-01-2025
5/6
allegation of any demand of dowry and torturing therefor.
Hence, there is no question of application of Section 498A IPC
either.
11. Even Section 494 IPC is not applicable as per the
alleged facts and circumstances. The first and foremost
ingredient of Section 494 IPC is solemnization of second
marriage in the life time of the first spouse. But in the FIR, there
is no such allegation that the petitioner has solemnized his
marriage with Arti Devi. Only allegation is that Arti Devi is
being kept by the petitioner as a wife.
12. As far as allegation regarding neglect of the
petitioner to maintain the informant/son and wife is concerned,
such negligence is not and offence, though it gives cause of
action to the person aggrieved to initiate maintenance
proceeding before Family Court.
13. Hence, I find that no prima facie case is made out
against the petitioner and prosecution has been initiated by the
informant/son with mala fide and ulterior motive. Therefore, the
impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside under
Section 482 Cr.PC. In the celebrated judgment of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan lal [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335], Hon’ble
Supreme Court has clearly held that if allegation made in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2401 of 2016 dt.17-01-2025
6/6
FIR and the charge-sheet do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused, the criminal
proceeding is liable to be quashed and set aside under Section
482 Cr.PC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in the same
judgment that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC may
be invoked by the Court to prevent the abuse of the process of
Court and secure the ends of justice, where a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite
him due to private and personal grudge.
14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed,
quashing and setting aside the impugned order and all further
proceedings arising out of it.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Shoaib/Chandan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 20.01.2025 Transmission Date 20.01.2025
[ad_1]
Source link